Use Of Oral Tradition In Archeology example essay topic

North American Indians did not have a writing system present prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Instead they used oral tradition as an instrument to preserve their culture, beliefs and knowledge about their past. These traditions were passed on verbally either in narratives or in songs from generation to generation. Today, these oral traditions are highly controversial.

With the rise of modern archeology, archeologists are keen in reconstructing the aboriginal past. There are two extremes of archeologists in dealing with oral traditions: there are those that believe oral traditions can be used to discover the aboriginal past and their counterparts deny the validity of oral traditions. This paper will present oral traditions in its dynamic relationship with archeology. Roger Echo-hawk, an aboriginal historian, presented his perspective on the role of oral tradition in his paper entitled, !

SSAncient History in the New World: Integrating Oral Traditions and the Archaeological Record!" . In it he suggests that oral traditions are useful in that they could be a model for piecing together the strands of archeological discoveries. Echo-hawk discourages the continuance of the term! SSprehistory!" to describe oral tradition.

The concept of prehistory as Echo-hawk defines it, ! SS presumes in the absence of firsthand written records before a specific point in time!" . This according to Echo-hawk is simply biased and creates propaganda against oral traditions. He acknowledges that there is no writing involved in the oral traditions but term! SSprehistory!" can easily mean there was no known history prior to European arrival. Therefore Echo-hawk suggests that the name be changed into!

SSancient history!" because he claims there is history in these very oral traditions as well with written documents (2000). One of the major events in Canada revolving around the issue of the validity of oral tradition is the Delgammukw case. In this lawsuit versus the province of British Columbia, the Gitksan had a land claim based on their oral tradition that they argue dates back to over 10,000 years. Heather Harris in! SS Remembering 10,000 Years of History!" wrote in support of these oral traditions and brought into play, the backing of modern science to affirm their legitimacy. The Gitksan people claimed that their oral traditions extend far back to the ancestors came to the Northwest when the ice was receding, creating glacial lakes at the Skeena valley.

According to geomorphology, a branch of geology that studies the evolution and configuration of landforms, the creation of glacial lakes in British Columbia in the Skeena valley dates back around 9,500 to 9,300 B.P. In correlation to the arrival of the ancestors, it may be possible that the Gitksan have lived in their area for nearly 10,000 years (1997: 191). In addition, the Gitksan claimed to have many oral traditions recording seismic events that caused catastrophes in which some were correlated with geological dated events (1997: 191-194). From this evidence, it can point towards the legitimacy of the Gitksan claims. After a lengthy lawsuit the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that oral traditions can be legally recognized for their accounts (McMillan and Ian Hutchinson 2002: 61) McMillan and Hutchinson had slightly different interpretation. In! SS When the Mountain Dwarfs Danced: Paleo seismic Events Reflected in Aboriginal Traditions in Northern Cascadia!" , they wrote about oral traditions from the Northwest Coast region in relation with seismic events.

Geologically, the Northwest Coast is part of the Cascadia subduction zone, is a highly seismically active region (2002: 44). The article itself documented very interesting yet distinct myths with each particular group and earthquakes deeply rooted in their cultural traditions. As well in oral traditions, each aboriginal group had a different perspective in explaining why earthquakes occur. Like the Gitksan, in Harris! | article, McMillan and Hutchinson also featured the oral traditions from different groups that documented what happened during these events. Although these oral traditions claim to be historical, according to McMillan and Hutchinson, they! SS float in time!" , and lacked dating.

Because there is no dating, one possibility may be that the multiple past experiences may have been combined into a single oral tradition. As well these traditions are fused with religious or moral codes so it is difficult to separate truth from fiction. McMillan and Hutchinson said these oral traditions! SS must be considered primarily as general awareness of periodic destructive forces rather than as historic accounts of specific events.

!" (2002: 59) In the United States, archeologists are bound by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). This act mandates integration of oral traditions when reconstructing the aboriginal past, which was what Echo-hawk supported. Also published at the same time as Echo-hawk's article, Mason's article was against the use of oral tradition in archeology. His reasons in discontinuing the use of oral tradition in archeology is as follows: 1) Dependant on memory and verbal transmission, oral traditions are simply not trustworthy 2) The genre by its nature is more an artifact of contemporary culture than a record of the past. 3) Oral traditions are closed belief systems, beholden to authority and impervious to external challenge. 4) All or parts of oral traditions ma be considered sacred, only partly or not all accessible to outsiders; guardians of such lore determine what may be released and how it may be used.

(2000) His first argument is simple, stating that memories cannot be trusted. In addition Mason claims if there were any changes from the original oral history, nobody would know because it is impossible to compare the current oral tradition to the original. The second argument states that only the culture (religion, beliefs, and traditions) can be taken from the oral traditions. The third con argument is loosely based on the continuance of religious beliefs as recorded in the traditions. Mason's final argument is that some tribes consider their oral traditions to be sacred. Therefore sometimes only parts of it will be allowed for research, instead of the whole.

In this way, certain beliefs and cultures can be preserved in a world where science conflicts with culture. Mason argues that, ! SS There is no room for the consideration of private information as data in any archaeology aspiring to scientific status. !" (2000) Oral traditions have a very dynamic relationship with archeology. Once considered as!

SSprehistory!" , the term is now considered a politically incorrect. The peoples that have used oral traditions for centuries claimed that it is historical. Nevertheless the only thing that was clear was that oral traditions reported of seismic activity but there is no precise dating on it to make any of their claims, historical. The current status of oral tradition in Canada and the United States is backed by the Supreme Court and NAGPRA. Hence it is law in both countries to give some consideration when making any archeological connections. However has caused major opposition like that of Mason, who deny that oral traditions hold any truth alongside archeology.